Pinned straw:
Good question. I guess $NTI is earlier in the process, is a big part of it.
I haven't spent a lot of time looking at the last investor presentation, but it is not clear to me what the pathway ahead to NTI164 commercialisation for ASD is. On the basis of the Phase II/III result, it looks to have some promise, given that there is no FDA-approved drug for the treatment of the any of the core domains of symptoms for ASD. (Rispiridone being approved for behavioural - irritability - only).
However, the readout is also a preliminary one, so I think we need to see what happens with the more complete report. (But, you are right to point out that NNZ-2591 was also a preliminary readout).
On Retts, the data seems to show not as good a clinical effect as DAYBUE but better tolerability - I guess the question is what the results look like in the next phase, and whether the improved safety/tolerability gets it over the line with orphan designation? Which will be key. It then faces being second to market by several years, which puts it on the back foot unless it is clearly superior.
The other point is that $NTI - even with its completed $10m capital raise - it pretty lightly funded. $NEU raised more cash earlier I think. So I imagine shareholder of $NTI face a fair bit of dilution ahead. Maybe mixing up the report with the CR presentation took some of the focus off the result?
But certainly, it is an interesting one to track, and I agree - I haven't answered the question about the lack of a SP response.
There are others here more across the interpretation of the clinical data, so I am also interested in others' views too.
My superficial bottom line: 1) earlier in the process 2) unclear what the path to commercialisation is 3) funding and dilution to getting to revenues. Quite a way to go, vs. $NEU $0.25bn in the bank, generating revenuez, multiple trials advancing with CY2024 newsflow ahead, so its on everyone's radar screens, and therefore market is more sensistive to newsflow.